It is hard to understand. Lowering the nic in cigarettes will increase sales volumes, tax revenue and tar inhaled. I guess it's a tradeoff.
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
It is hard to understand. Lowering the nic in cigarettes will increase sales volumes, tax revenue and tar inhaled. I guess it's a tradeoff.
I thought the exact same thing when I read it also. I know from personal experience(as all that are here do also) that when reducing the nicotine levels in our ejuice we all vape more. When I was still smoking and tried to go to a lower level nic cigarette I also smoked more. Once again they have the facts azz backwards. Can they really be that ignorant? And whom do they think will really believe this &(&(*** that they are selling?
But for right now, I am doing a happy dance that the pressure is off the deadlines and that more people will have the opportunity to be able to make the switch to ecigs and save their lives. This is a good day. so far
It's complicated. You have to consider that cigarettes deliver nic in a different way than vapes do.
Totally aware of that. But doesn't change the fact that when your body is addicted to a certain level of nic you will maintain that level by smoking or vaping more to compensate. At least until your body adjusts. And for some people that adjustment never happens.
I'm wondering what they plan to do about the grandfather date? Old cigs would be safe as long as they don't change things, right? If they change the nic levels, don't they have to go through the PMTA process? Why would anyone change his safe, protected product in order to get brownie points, unless they plan to change the date for everyone?
I don't think they do if it is mandated that a change happen. Think back to when the FDA mandated that cigarettes had to be fire safe.
I'm not so sure, the FSC rules came out before the deeming was announced. They may be conveniently forgetting about that. Changing nic would be a major change in the filler recipe.
It was that crappy paper that got me thinking seriously about quitting because it made me feel sick, and for the first time in ever, I started burning things when the cherry would fall off for no reason.
Judge Jackson confirmed what the FDA has always said, that Only Congress can Change the Predicate Date.
I believe what Gottlieb was referring to when he mentioned Lower Nicotine Cigarettes was with regards to a New Cigarette(s).
And by saying that PMTA or SE or MRTA requirements would be Reviewed and Possibly Relaxed, he was telling BT that they would have a Less Costly route to getting a New Product to market.
Thinking back on it, cigarette smoke didn't smell nearly as bad until they put that new glue in place....
I really don't see this as a trade off. BT benefits by the deeming being pushed back also as they are trying to enter the vaping arena. Yes? So increasing their revenue in cigarettes and causing more smokers to inhale more tar is beneficial to the public health how?
That's the thing...everything 'sounds' straightforward yet still left up to too much interpretation at the same time.
My gut says watch out....
We have 'some' breathing room, for now.
Just my two cents, but suppose there could be nic strength controls (child safety) and quantity controls over the size bottle you can buy as a consumer. I don't see nicotine being outlawed, although the FDA doesn't seem to like concentrated nic. They haven't addressed nic that much from what I've seen. They have been really verbal about child safety around nicotine products, especially since there are fruit, dessert, and candy vape juices available.
I just hope that vendors change their mind about closing up shop. We've seen a few selling out and announcing that they are closing.
In a purely libertarian world, with minimal intervention, going down the road of reducing nicotine in cigarettes isn't really the way to go. I mean, I probably know five-fold number of smokers who are going to be deeply upset by this than vapers... It's social engineering to PUSH people into vaping, even if the outcome may be more positive (and we, as vapers, are so happy to not be on the chopping block, that we aren't necessarily thinking of the smokers involved, some people have no desire to quit). It is a fascinating and totally unexpected reversal, and I will be happy at the outcome (possibly) and if the desire is to push people to harm reduction that's great. That said, it's still social engineering. I really wish that it becomes a fair and good outcome for smokers too... I have a lot of empathy surrounding that issue. I would have hated it if the FDA started removing things from my cigs... At least for most of my life.
Anna
Here is the problem Anna, as we are moving as a nation toward socialised medicine, we are also moving toward government interference into anything we do which may or may not affect our health. When it's government which is most affected in a cost benefit analysis of smoking, then it's government who will need (yes, need) to enforce actions of the individual which will not be a drain on the system, otherwise the system will go broke.
When we invite government into our doctors examination rooms because we don't want to pay for the visit, we inadvertently invite them into our private decisions that can affect our health. It's simple logic.
That was my point, selling a "benefit" that may cause more harm while cigarette sales and taxes get propped up. Sorry my sarcasm is running high tonight!
Some will, some wont. You actually can't do anything to make vaping exactly like smoking and yet people make the switch daily even though it's different. So it looks like the FDA is going in the direction of making cigs easier to quit for those who want to, knowing that those who don't want to quit will keep smoking regardless of what the FDA does.
That ship has sailed. They stated that they were done. Now they did sell all their stuff to someone. Whether or not that someone takes up where ProVape left off.... dunno
In a purely libertarian world, with minimal intervention, going down the road of reducing nicotine in cigarettes isn't really the way to go. I mean, I probably know five-fold number of smokers who are going to be deeply upset by this than vapers... It's social engineering to PUSH people into vaping, even if the outcome may be more positive (and we, as vapers, are so happy to not be on the chopping block, that we aren't necessarily thinking of the smokers involved, some people have no desire to quit). It is a fascinating and totally unexpected reversal, and I will be happy at the outcome (possibly) and if the desire is to push people to harm reduction that's great. That said, it's still social engineering. I really wish that it becomes a fair and good outcome for smokers too... I have a lot of empathy surrounding that issue. I would have hated it if the FDA started removing things from my cigs... At least for most of my life.
Anna
We aren't going to have a purely libertarian world for quite a few reasons. Even if we could agree on what a libertarian world would mean, which Libertarians can't even do. But I will settle for supporting the greatest amount of individual freedom as possible while living in a functional society that is outlined by our founding document.
There may be vendors who decide to hang on longer to see what happens. The statement in one of the articles I read indicated that government wanted to get people off cigarettes and the health problems they create and into vaping because it's much safer. That tells me that they are on the side of the vaping world.
Government is hooked on the huge tax revenue tied to smoking. Where and how do they replace that revenue stream? Maybe it's the huge medical costs of smoking that they are trying to eliminate over time. You can bet it's tied to some numbers. VA and Medicare probably have much of the costs associated with smoking related illnesses.
Government is hooked on the huge tax revenue tied to smoking. Where and how do they replace that revenue stream? Maybe it's the huge medical costs of smoking that they are trying to eliminate over time. You can bet it's tied to some numbers. VA and Medicare probably have much of the costs associated with smoking related illnesses.
I didn't recognize this as sarcasm. AT least to me? If I have done something to offend, please accept my apologies. Wasn't intentional.
Similar threads
- Locked
